In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 488 / 2009.
1) S.R. Timber Products Pvt. Ltd.,
268, G.T. Road, 1st Floor, Narayani Complex ,
Liluah, Howrah-711204. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) MSIG Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd.,
4, Sgenton, way #21-01 SGX Centre 2,
Singapore-068807.
Office at : 1A, Janaki Shah Road, Hastings, Kolkata-700022.
2) Gladstone Agencies Ltd.,
1A, Janaki Shah Road, Hastings, Kolkata-700022.
3) The Master for and on behalf of M.V. “Genius Prescadores,
8, Lyons Range, Kolkata-700001. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 23 Dated 14/05/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant S.R. Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. against the o.ps. MSIG Insurance (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. and others. The fact of the case in short is that complainant is a company engaged in import of Sarawak round logs for earning bread and butter for the members of the family.
Further case of the complainant is that on 19.9.07 o.p. no.3 received on board the ship M.V. “GENIUS PESCADORES V.60” from the shipper M/s. Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pte Ltd. a consignment of 864 pieces of ‘Sarawak round logs’ of the property of complainant for safe transportation from the port of Sarawak, Malaysian Port to the port of Kolkata or near upto and to deliver in the like order to the shippers and o.p. no.3 accordingly, accepted the consignment and issued a clean bill of lading vide no.GP60/CAL-02 dt.19.9.07 and thus complainant became owner of those 864 pieces of Sarawak round logs as per invoice no.1552/2007 dt.19.9.07 and after unloading the logs it was found by the panel surveyor of Kolkata Port Trust that 18 logs were found short out of 864 and accordingly, surveyor issued ‘to whom it may concern’ to the complainant thereby mentioning short landing of 18 pieces of Sarawak round logs and the said consignment was insured with o.p. no.1 under the Marine Cargo Insurance Policy being no.A26616220CGO dt.31.8.07 for sum insured USD 22,832.79 covering cargo under Institute Cargo Clause “A” i.e. ALL RISKS and thereafter complainant lodged claim to o.p. no.1 to the tune of Rs.17,87,127/- along with relevant documents and such claim was made being beneficiary of the loss of Sarawak round logs that complainant went on making correspondences with o.p. no.1 and lastly on 30.11.09 o.p. no.1 asked complainant to submit papers relating to the loss of consignment with o.ps. even when complainant while lodging the claim initially submitted all the relevant documents with o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.1 did not pay heed to such correspondences. O.p. no.2 happens to be Indian agent of o.p. no.1. Hence the instant case filed by complainant with the prayer mentioned in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.2 had entered its appearance by filing w/v and denied all the material allegation labeled against it. O.p. nos.1 and 3 did not appear in this case by filing w/v and accordingly, matter was heard ex parte as against o.p. nos.1 and 3. The case of o.p. no.2 is that complainant does not have any legal and valid claim as has been painted by complainant and the instant case is liable to be dismissed as has been submitted by ld. lawyer appearing for o.p. no.2 in the course of argument.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is fact that the policy referred to herein before is assignable as per Marine Insurance Policy Rule. Ld. lawyer of complainant in the course of argument referred to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission published in 2005 NC and Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that insurance claim cannot be construed as commercial purpose. We have perused the entire materials on record and we find that o.p. nos.1 and 2 both had liabilities and deficiency in service being service provider to consumer / complainant since because in particular that Marine Insurance Police Rule is assignable in the eye of law. That being the position we find complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. no.2 and ex parte with cost against o.p. no.1 and without cost against o.p. no.3. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,66,287/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs sixty six thousand two hundred eighty seven) only to the complainant towards the loss amount of the material in question and survey fees amounting Rs.20,840/- (Rupees twenty thousand eight hundred forty) only. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand ) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are directed to comply with the above mentioned order within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-______ ____Sd-_______ ______Sd-_________
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
